The Top 7 Reasons Why Litigators and Judges Prefer Human Reporters to Recording Devices
When it comes to this important job, people are still better than machines
If you spend any amount of time on the Internet, there’s a topic that’s as prevalent as anything else: rapidly-shifting technology. Nowadays, everything is getting “smarter”: our cars, our homes, and certainly our devices. And of course, you can’t talk about tech without mentioning robots, which seem to be threatening jobs on a daily basis.
But for the time being, we humans still play an important role in many professions. Take customer service, for example. You would think that with chatbots and the like, this is an industry ripe for robotic takeover. But a recent survey revealed that most people still want to talk to an actual person when contacting a business.
Court reporting is another job that seems like it could be done with recording equipment instead of a stenographer. In fact, this is already happening in some courtrooms. However, most people involved in any sort of legal matter – including lawyers and judges – still prefer human court reporters. Here’s why:
Whether a trial, deposition, or any other legal proceeding, accurate reporting is critical. And sure, a digital recorder can get every cough or chair squeak, but will it get all of the important stuff? A court reporter only records what is said. And because of their training and fast fingers, you are pretty much guaranteed that they will get every last syllable.
No matter how high-tech a product is, there is always the chance of some kind of malfunction. Even if a digital recorder is working as it should, if it’s not in the right location or the volume levels are not set properly, this can cause problems. The worst part is that when a technical issue is discovered, it’s almost always after the proceedings are over.
Lots of things are said during a legal procedure, not all of which is intended for everyone to hear. You can’t tell that to a digital recorder; that device may catch everything. But stenographers will only record relevant testimony and will ignore exchanges between lawyers and their clients.
When an attorney or judge asks for something to be read back, a court reporter can quickly and easily find it. After all, the stenographer documented it, so he or she knows just where it is. It’s much more difficult with a digital recorder. Sure, it may have been captured, but it will probably take a while to locate.
Digital recordings may seem convenient, but in the long run, they’re really not. All legal proceedings require a transcript, so that recording then has to be sent to a professional to be transcribed. This just adds more time and trouble. A court reporter can produce a transcript right away.
Trials don’t happen in a vacuum. In many cases, previous hearings or depositions need to be looked at so testimony can be compared. A stenographer can get access to the necessary documents immediately.
Once a proceeding is finished, lawyers or the judge may have to review it. With a digital recording, this is an extremely time-consuming process. With a court reporter, however, reviews can be made during the procedure. In addition, a report can be printed right away for those who need it.
In the future, almost certainly some jobs will be performed by machines exclusively. However, for now, many still require a human touch. To ensure your hearings, trials, and depositions are recorded as they should, contact Boss Reporting. We will provide you with a trained and experienced court reporter. Schedule your job here.